R v Rees [2000] NSWSC 643

R v Rees [2000] NSWSC 643

The evidence of Mark Chipperfield and the edited ERISP were admissible because the witness's prior representations were of significant probative value to a central fact in issue, namely whether there was a common purpose between the accused and Chipperfield to rob David Palin; the witness's claimed amnesia was not accepted as a genuine attempt to give evidence and justified leave for Crown cross-examination under s 38(1); the interview was made within about 32 hours of the events and therefore when the asserted facts were fresh in memory for s 66(2); the representations also had substantial probative value as prior inconsistent statements; and the probative value was not outweighed by any...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on an Indictment Charging Murder / Trial Evidentiary Rulings After Voir Dire Concerning Admission of Witness Evidence, Leave to Cross Examine Under S 38(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, and Tender of an Electronically Recorded Interview
Outcome
Objection overruled; leave to cross-examine granted; edited ERISP admitted.
Legal Topics
['murder Trial' 'voir Dire' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'hearsay Exception' 'fresh in the Memory' 'unfair Prejudice' 'electronically Recorded Interview']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder Trial' 'voir Dire' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'hearsay Exception' 'fresh in the Memory' 'unfair Prejudice' 'electronically Recorded Interview']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings on an Indictment Charging Murder / Trial Evidentiary Rulings After Voir Dire Concerning Admission of Witness Evidence, Leave to Cross Examine Under S 38(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, and Tender of an Electronically Recorded Interview

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to call evidence from Mark Chipperfield despite his claimed amnesia about the events surrounding the alleged offence.' 'Whether the Crown should be granted leave under s 38(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine Mark Chipperfield as an unfavourable witness.' 'Whether the edited electronically recorded interview between Mark Chipperfield and Detective Beck was admissible under s 66(2), s 60, or as a prior inconsistent statement under s 43 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the evidence or the ERISP should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Mark Chipperfield and the edited ERISP were admissible because the witness's prior representations were of significant probative value to a central fact in issue, namely whether there was a common purpose between the accused and Chipperfield to rob David Palin; the witness's claimed amnesia was not accepted as a genuine attempt to give evidence and justified leave for Crown cross-examination under s 38(1); the interview was made within about 32 hours of the events and therefore when the asserted facts were fresh in memory for s 66(2); the representations also had substantial probative value as prior inconsistent statements; and the probative value was not outweighed by any...

Court Disposition

Objection overruled; leave to cross-examine granted; edited ERISP admitted.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mark Chipperfield was allowed.' 'The Crown was granted leave to cross-examine Mark Chipperfield pursuant to s 38(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'The edited electronically recorded interview between Mark Chipperfield and Detective Beck made on 19 November 1997 was admitted.']